Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29035166›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2017

Strengthening expertise for health technology assessment and priority-setting in Africa.

Jane E Doherty, Thomas Wilkinson, Ijeoma Edoka, Karen Hofman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Health technology assessment capacity to support Zambia's health benefits package reform policy.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A New eHealth Investment Appraisal Framework for Africa: Validation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. EHealth Investment Appraisal in Africa: A Scoping Review.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jane E Dohertya School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of the Witwatersrand , Parktown , Johannesburg , South Africa.
Thomas Wilkinsonb PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost-Effective Lessons for Systems Strengthening South Africa), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of the Witwatersrand , Parktown , Johannesburg , South Africa.
Ijeoma Edokab PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost-Effective Lessons for Systems Strengthening South Africa), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of the Witwatersrand , Parktown , Johannesburg , South Africa.
Karen Hofmanb PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost-Effective Lessons for Systems Strengthening South Africa), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of the Witwatersrand , Parktown , Johannesburg , South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAchieving sustainable universal health coverage depends partly on fair priority-setting processes that ensure countries spend scarce resources wisely. While general health economics capacity-strengthening initiatives exist in Africa, less attention has been paid to developing the capacity of individuals, institutions and networks to apply economic evaluation in support of health technology assessment and effective priority-setting.

objectiveOn the basis of international  lessons, to identify how research organisations and partnerships could contribute to capacity strengthening for health technology assessment and priority-setting in Africa.

methodsA rapid scan was conducted of international formal and grey literature and lessons extracted from the deliberations of two international and regional workshops relating to capacity-building for health technology assessment. 'Capacity' was defined in broad terms, including a conducive political environment, strong public institutional capacity to drive priority-setting, effective networking between experts, strong research organisations and skilled researchers.

resultsEffective priority-setting requires more than high quality economic research. Researchers have to engage with an array of stakeholders, network closely other research organisations, build partnerships with different levels of government and train the future generation of researchers and policy-makers. In low- and middle-income countries where there are seldom government units or agencies dedicated to health technology assessment, they also have to support the development of an effective priority-setting process that is sensitive to societal and government needs and priorities.

conclusionsResearch organisations have an important role to play in contributing to the development of health technology assessment and priority-setting capacity. In Africa, where there are resource and capacity challenges, effective partnerships between local and international researchers, and with key government stakeholders, can leverage existing skills and knowledge to generate a critical mass of individuals and institutions. These would help to meet the priority-setting needs of African countries and contribute to sustainable universal health coverage.

Indexed as

AfricaBiomedical ResearchCapacity BuildingCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalUniversal Health Insurancecapacityhealth technology assessmentnetworksResearch

Identifiers

PMID29035166
PMCPMC5700536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.